Hermes,

If you have read through my past posts (particularly the one that compared staking plans to level stakes) you would probably realise I am not a big fan of staking plans! As plans go, however, what you have proposed is not too bad - if I am reading it right you are only risking a portion of your winnings to try to accelerate your bank growth and you have a definite stop plan there to fall back to your base bet.

The question really becomes does it suit your strike rate, etc (this is probably your point about tailoring it to your selection system). What you need to do is work out what your realistic strike rate is and how often you are going to benefit from the additional stakes versus how often are you just going to waste that money. If you are looking at using this on win betting with a 20% strike rate then it may not be a good plan - but on place bets with 50% strike rate then it may make sense. For example with a 20% strike rate the chances of getting that second win on the next bet (after you have a win) is only 20% - so 4 out of 5 times you are going to miss. Maybe in this case you could look at spreading the extra bet in smaller amounts over a longer sequence (say the next 4 or 5 bets) to improve your chances of getting a hit with the elevated bet.

Basically I think you have to match your staking plan to the strike rate - high strike rates can support a more aggressive plan (eg. Placegetters all-up approach works really well if you have very high-strike rate place bets but will not work with 20% win bets) whilst for lower strike rate/higher div betting you need a much more conservative option. At this stage, because I have about a 12% strike rate, I have taken the ultimate conservative approach and just bet a percentage of my bank - that way the bet size increases when you win (quite slowly) and decreases with a run of outs (also quite slowly) but my bank is always protected.

__________________
"Computers can do that????" - Homer Simpson